Chaim
7600810639
All checks were successful
Build & Deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Successful in 14s
Two structural gaps in legal-researcher's "שלב 5: דיווח" surfaced while
auditing the case 8174-24 run:
1. **No DB linkage.** The skill told the researcher to post a comment
summarizing precedents but never to call mcp__legal-ai__precedent_attach.
The MCP tool itself wasn't even in the tools frontmatter — so even
a researcher that wanted to write to case_precedents physically
couldn't. Result: 0 rows in case_precedents after a successful
research run, even with 8 precedents identified and verified in
the comment text. The writer then has to grep free-text instead
of querying a structured table.
2. **No persisted file.** Research output existed only as a Paperclip
comment. The writer/QA can't `Read` it from disk; they have to go
through Paperclip API to fetch comment bodies. Compare to the
analyst, which is required to write `analysis-and-research.md`.
Fix:
• Added precedent_attach, precedent_list, precedent_search_library
to the tools frontmatter.
• Rewrote step 5 with explicit ordering: save to disk → attach
verified precedents to DB → update status → email → post comment.
• Documented the precedent_attach call signature inline (case_number,
citation, quote, section_id) so the agent doesn't have to reverse-
engineer it. Includes guidance on which precedents to attach
(verified with quote) vs which to leave for external verification.
Effect: future research runs will populate case_precedents and
data/cases/{N}/documents/research/precedent-research.md, both of which
the writer needs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>